In addition to voting for the next president, Massachusetts voters will also be voting on three important ballot questions. Question 1 asks whether the personal state income tax should be eliminated and Question 2 asks voters whether the criminal penalties for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana should be replaced with a civil fine of no more than $100. Less controversial and likely to pass is Question 3, which would prohibit dog racing in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering occurs. A yes vote on Question 3 is, as they say, a no-brainer.

No on Question 1

While all of us would like to pay less in taxes, passage of Question 1 is not the way to do it. Eliminating the revenue to the state that flows from the state income tax would have a catastrophic and broad-reaching effect, far in excess of what the question’s supporters say.

Question 1 is a binding proposal, which would, if passed, cost the Commonwealth more that $12 billion in revenues, a sum equal to nearly 40 percent of the budget. That’s a huge percentage, no matter how you cut it. Such a reduction would lead to drastic cuts, not only in the programs we love to criticize, but also in the kinds of programs we all rely upon.

If Question 1 passes, the education of our children and the healthcare of our seniors, low-income families, and people with disabilities would be put at risk. A yes vote on Question 1 would force larger class sizes, eliminate after-school programs, and likely close more schools.

By stripping the state treasury of $12 billion in vital revenues, public safety would be jeopardized by requiring fewer emergency response personnel, police officers and firefighters, while longer 911 wait times can also be anticipated.

Our roads and bridges, already in need of repair, will further deteriorate, while cuts in public transportation will surely result. The job market and economic development require a healthy infrastructure, with quality, available healthcare and education. Whether a business decides to move into a state is determined less by the state’s tax burden, than by such quality of life factors as education, healthcare, housing and cultural opportunities which will undoubtedly be negatively impacted by a yes vote on Question 1.

While no one wants to pay taxes, it should be noted that Massachusetts is ranked 23rd in the percentage of personal income that goes toward state and local taxes, according to the Tax Foundation. That hardly qualifies as the “Taxachusetts” of old.

One other key point to consider is that with the substantial reduction of local aid to the cities and towns that would result from Question 1’s passage, it’s reasonable to assume property taxes would be increased to make up for that lost state aid.

So yes, while times are very difficult for many people, let’s not make them worse. Vote No on Question 1.

Yes on Question 2

A Yes vote on Question 2 to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana makes all the sense in the world. The truth is that arresting and jailing pot users is an incredible waste of precious resources and inflicts more harm than the use of the substance ever could.

If passed, Massachusetts would join 12 other states that have enacted similar versions of marijuana decriminalization – none of which having experienced increases in marijuana use. Specifically, passage of Question 2 would replace criminal penalties for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana by persons age 18 or older with a civil fine of no more than $100.

The research of the facts makes clear why decriminalization makes sense: 1) it frees up police resources to deal with more serious crimes; 2) more harm is caused by the criminal prohibition of marijuana that by the use itself; 3) decriminalization does not lead to greater marijuana use, and 4) criminal laws prohibiting marijuana possession do not deter marijuana use.

In 2007, 872,000 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses and presently 60,000 are behind bars. Annually taxpayers spend between $7.5 billion and $10 billion for arresting and prosecuting pot offenders, with almost 90 percent of those offenses being for simple possession.

Why do we spend all these resources prosecuting marijuana users when the use of marijuana has never resulted in death by overdose? Both the U.N.’s World Health Organization and The National Academy of Sciences have concluded that marijuana is one of the least dangerous drugs, legal or otherwise, while an Institute of Medicine (IOM) study concluded that there was no evidence marijuana was a “gateway” to hard drugs.

While using marijuana may not harm you, getting caught with it certainly will. Convicted marijuana offenders are denied federal financial student aid, welfare and food stamps, and may be removed from public housing. Other non-drug violations do not carry such penalties. In many states, convicted marijuana offenders are automatically stripped of their driving privileges, even if the offense is not driving-related.

The primary opponents to passage of Question 2 are the state’s district attorneys. This shouldn’t surprise anyone for the very basic reason that prosecuting marijuana offenders has become a jobs program for the criminal justice industry. It’s as simple as that.

For a common-sense approach to marijuana offenders, vote Yes on Question 2.